Should Gay Marriage Exist?

originally posted by: mortex

The natural state of a human being is to be naked and hungry, exposed to the elements.

Anything better than that is artificial.

Do you like living in a house? Or do you want things to be natural?

One of the dumbest simpleton responses I've ever read.
Man lived in caves once, right?
Man made simple shelters once, right?
We now make bigger, better shelters, we call them houses and apartment buildings.

The only reason they could live in caves is because they invented the technology of fire, to warm the cave and give it light. Otherwise animals that could see in the dark would have driven them out.

Sexual intercourse has one primary purpose. Reproduction, which means the continuation of our species.
For reproduction to occur, I'm sure you know (I hope), that you need a male and a female.
Reproduction does not happen between two males, two females, again, I hope you know this.

Technology is changing that.

Just as the invention of fire allowed humans to live in caves, the invention of genetic manipulation will soon allow humans to move away from gender requirements for reproduction.

It already has to some degree. Can always artificially inseminate, or get someone to be a surrogate. A pair of gay women can agree with a pair of gay men to begin pregnancies that way if they want.

Humanities sick and twisted perverted scientists can mess with Gods work, and create men that can give birth, give people sex changes, give people hormones to change them, whatever else.
That doesn't make it natural or more just as important, NORMAL.
It is called an abomination for a reason.

Those things are defined as abominations by religion. And religion is the only place where that definition does, or ought, to mean anything.

At least in a society that has freedom of religion.

Do you like freedom or religion?

As well as paedophilia, which the sickos are calling minor attracted person.
Theyre going to campaign and use their influence to normalise this, are you all going to support it?
Today you'll say no, you won't support pedos.
In a few years you'll be supporting it, just like you supported gat marriage and all the covid nonsense and tge ridiculous Ukraine narrative.

The problem with pedophilia is consent. A person under 18 can't legally give consent, and sex without consent is, by definition: rape.

I don't think permitting rape is ever going to become a mainstream ideal.

So technically, based on what you just posted, you're supportive of paedophiles.

The problem with paedophilia isn't consent, it is that it is morally wrong.
You have to have some serious screws loose up stairs to think that the problem is consent.
But you just gave your self away.
I think we've uncovered a radical leftist troll...

Actually consent is the only problem with it. It harms children because they are too young to give consent.

If it were possible using genetics, for a fully adult person to make themselves physically a child, and still have an adult's mind in every way, I'd be fine with them doing whatever they want.

But harming children is wrong.

Instead of calling it same sex marriage, just call it a civil union and stop messing with common sense.

Or just call all marriages civil unions, and have the state leave it at that.

I don't want Uncle Sam in my bedroom. He's too dam creepy.

No, because a marriage is something many faiths hold deer and important, and some would say holy.
Diminishing it to a civil union, just to appease sicko radical leftist extremists, like you, and degenerate perverts, is wrong.
It's this appeasement that has gotten us to this disturbing stage in humanity.

So we should only have religious freedom about things that don't matter to religion?

What if it does matter to religions, and we have religious freedom about it anyway? Is that crossing a line for you?

Like Henry Ford said: "People can have the Model T in any color, so long as it's black."

I'm free to choose any religion I want.......... so long as it's yours.

Oh, and same sex couples should have ZERO rights to have kids via surrogates or adopt.

What about people that aren't married at all? Or virgins who haven't had homo or hetero sex in their lifetime?

What about them...
How do you expect a virgin to have a child?

Isn't that how Christianity began?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Technology is changing that.

You still need an egg and fertilizer. for being the last post, thus getting a reply and a star


-----


Came back to rehash the issue now that Roe V. Wade has been overturned and people are now speculating about Clarance Thomas' remarks about future "possibilities".

I hope Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned and taken even further. Deny all religious institutions (Catholics, Jews, ect) the tax incentives that the gay community want to take part in as well. *eta- If you have to go down to a courthouse to get married and for it to be officialized, that's wrong. And that's only the case because the state offers tax breaks for "married couples". We give the state too much power and too much personal information that they have NO right to.

Marriage is before God, not the state. And in America, we have a separation of church and state. If a man wants to marry another man, that will have to be answered before God, who's to say it's right or wrong "or deserving of a tax break", that's not the states decision. Love is not quantifiable and the state has no authority over the rights of man, rights which were bestowed upon us by our creator.

It’s decent of the straight (probably right wing) folks who say “not my business, do what you will.”

Sadly, this doesn’t go for many people in certain states. And if you’re gonna stick to your Bible as the precedent we all have to stick to, let’s call you what you are: a radical.

No different than Islam. You’re just the local variety.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

Deuteronomy 24:1 makes it sound pretty easy if you're a man.

Nope.

LOL

"Nope", but not in the biblical sense. Amirite, or amirite!